quote:

Originally posted by Vesa Possibly in the long run Saddam's downfall will result in more Iraqi lives saved than now have been lost in the invasion. I read somewhere that Saddam was responsible for like a million dead Iraqis. Could this really be possible, or am I mistaken? But don't be too optimistic. The Iraqi death toll is not yet known, and their military losses will probably be much greater than currently thought. And the civilian toll will be huge, too. Streets Littered With Corpses as US Troops Closing In on Downtown Kerbala http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Stor...,931222,00.html Red Cross: Iraq Wounded Too High to Count http://www.abcnews.go.com/wire/Worl...030406_446.html War is hell

But those articles seem to reference those casualties as Iraqi military casualties. I agree its tragic however, I think it's important to delineate between civilian casualties and combatant casualties. The ICRC does not give estimates on civilian casualties because it is far too difficult to give estimates during a conflict. Ironically the pentagon would probably have the best idea of theh number of casualties. I agree though ... war is hell.

Hmm, this all looks to me like Iraq is pulling a trap on the americans. Remember how Um Quasr was thought to be secured the first day of the attack, and it infact turned out to be filled with Saddam's soldiers just waiting for the chance to strike back. Baghdad probably has tens of thousands Iraqi military/paramilitary troops in it, if not more. If they get themselves mixed up with the civilians, the death tolls may well rise into the 5 figure numbers. Besides, in urban environments, US forces aren't very superior to the Iraqi ones, which means that the losses could very likely be equal on both sides.

I don't think this war will be over soon because as soon as it began, Saddam said he's gonna make his stand in the cities instead of the open ground where his forces are clearly weaker. So far, he hasn't lost a single major city.

___________________
1+1=10

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Hmm, this all looks to me like Iraq is pulling a trap on the americans. Remember how Um Quasr was thought to be secured the first day of the attack, and it infact turned out to be filled with Saddam's soldiers just waiting for the chance to strike back. Baghdad probably has tens of thousands Iraqi military/paramilitary troops in it, if not more. If they get themselves mixed up with the civilians, the death tolls may well rise into the 5 figure numbers. Besides, in urban environments, US forces aren't very superior to the Iraqi ones, which means that the losses could very likely be equal on both sides. I don't think this war will be over soon because as soon as it began, Saddam said he's gonna make his stand in the cities instead of the open ground where his forces are clearly weaker. So far, he hasn't lost a single major city.

Except he didn't make his stance in the cities. He established the Republican guard right outside of Baghdad rather than in the city. Intelligence reports indicated he did so in order to avoid an uprising against him from within baghdad. The Brits have captured Basra and they have yet to experience a "blood bath" as Saddam predicted. Contrary to this, we see many Iraqis ratting out pro-Saddam forces and celebrating their liberation. I think that Saddam's grasp on his forces beyond the extremes are rather tenuous. You would think that these thousands of defenders would have risen up at 100 tanks entering the city ... what are they waiting for 10,000 tanks?

- I guess all there is now is to wait and see.

___________________
I live in a Trance, muzik is my XTC, is what makes you dream, feel all those phat feelings... that no other gives!